Stuart v. Laird was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1803. The case involved whether Congress had the power to create a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over state courts, and if so, what limits were placed on that power. In this particular instance, Congress had created such a court for criminal cases arising out of violations of the Neutrality Act of 1794. The Supreme Court held that while Congress did have authority to establish lower federal courts with limited appellate jurisdiction over state courts in certain circumstances, it could not do so without first obtaining consent from two-thirds of both houses or else violating Article III Section 2 Clause 2 which states “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors…and those in which a State shall be Party” only the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction and no other court may exercise any appellate powers over them. Therefore, since this case fell under one of these categories as it affected an ambassador (Alexander Stuart), the creation by Congress was unconstitutional and invalidated accordingly

In Stuart v. Laird, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether Congress had the power to create a federal court in Washington D.C., which would have jurisdiction over cases involving citizens from different states. The majority of justices held that Congress did not possess such authority under Article III of the Constitution and thus could not establish this court. Justice Samuel Chase dissented, arguing that while it is true that Article III does not explicitly grant Congress this power, there are other parts of the Constitution which do allow for its exercise; namely Articles I and IV as well as certain provisions in Amendments XI and XII. He further argued that since these articles provide for Congressional action on matters related to interstate commerce or disputes between two or more states, they also implicitly permit them to set up courts with jurisdiction over such matters when necessary - including those located within Washington D.C.. Therefore he concluded that establishing a federal court in Washington D.C., with jurisdiction over cases involving citizens from different states was indeed permissible under existing Constitutional law at the time